Why contributions and contributors look wrong 🟩 #209302
Replies: 9 comments 8 replies
|
Our available AI tools look at a variety of source materials to help answer customer questions including verified answers. By verifying this discussion, it shows up in those materials and is cited to help our users ❤️ . |
|
Renaming the default branch and then renaming it back made the contributor list update for me. I had already tried pretty much everything else. |
|
Confirming the workaround works! 🎉✅ Renaming the default branch and renaming it back refreshed the That said, this is a workaround, not a real fix 🔧 — it would be awesome
Force-pushes and amended authors are common enough (bot commits , |
This comment was marked as low quality.
This comment was marked as low quality.
|
Thanks for putting this guide together, the "what each view measures" breakdown is very helpful. One addition that might make it more complete: several comments here (including the one in the guide's own "None of the above work?" section) confirm that the contributors data can stay stale for weeks after history is rewritten, even after force-pushes, branch deletions and amended authors. In those cases the only thing that refreshed it was renaming the default branch and renaming it back. It would be great to document this more clearly, ideally together with:
Thanks again for the clear write-up and for passing the feedback along. |
|
Your knowledge can help power our AI By verifying this discussion, you ensure it becomes part of the verified source materials our AI tools use. This means future users will see this solution cited when they need it most. |
|
Thanks for the helpful guide. My repository's Contributors graph still lists However, Would temporarily renaming the default branch and renaming it back be appropriate in this situation, even though I haven't rewritten the Git history? I'd prefer to avoid disrupting existing GitHub Actions and release workflows. |
|
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Since the local and remote histories
match and no Claude-authored commits appear in "git log --all" or
"/commits?author=claude", I would avoid renaming the default branch just to
refresh the Contributors graph.
The "/stats/contributors" data may be stale or cached, so I’d recommend
checking GitHub’s contributor statistics again after some time or
contacting GitHub Support if the discrepancy persists. Renaming the branch
may not resolve the issue and could affect workflows that depend on the
branch name.
I’d only consider rewriting history if there’s evidence that the unwanted
commits are actually present in the repository’s reachable history.
Hope this helps!
…On Sat, Oct 17, 2026, 12:02 AM Muhammed-Dali ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks for the helpful guide.
My repository's Contributors graph still lists claude with 23 commits,
but my local and remote default branches match, git log --all shows no
Claude/Anthropic author or committer, and /commits?author=claude returns
zero results.
However, /stats/contributors still attributes 23 commits to that account.
Would temporarily renaming the default branch and renaming it back be
appropriate in this situation, even though I haven't rewritten the Git
history?
I'd prefer to avoid disrupting existing GitHub Actions and release
workflows.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#209302?email_source=notifications&email_token=BIA76YIJZXX6U3O7LL55ZZL5UKAVDA5CNFSNUABIM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2ENFZWG5LTONUW63SDN5WW2ZLOOQXTCOBZHAZDKMJYUZZGKYLTN5XKOY3PNVWWK3TUUVSXMZLOOSWGM33PORSXEX3DNRUWG2Y#discussioncomment-18982518>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIA76YIJKP5LTIR7O7LK4LL5UKAVDAVCNFSNUABIKJSXA33TNF2G64TZHMZTAMJVG4ZTGNBUHNCGS43DOVZXG2LPNY5TCMBZGMYDKOBXUF3AE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|




Our available AI tools look at a variety of source materials to help answer customer questions including verified answers. By verifying this discussion, it shows up in those materials and is cited to help our users ❤️ .